Microsoft Linux? HAHAHA, er, wait a second…

I was eating lunch with a partner the other day and he related to me that a colleague of his had reported that a friend of his sister’s fiance’s father’s lawyer’s second half-cousin (or something more confusing) had said that Microsoft would have a version of Microsoft Linux next year, no fooling.

I thought (didn’t say, thought) “Bull” and we discussed the problems and logistics of such a thing happening with the GPL and all the restrictions that occur with such an environment and the likelihood of Microsoft so changing it’s spots as to have this be likely.

It was only later that I suddenly thought about FreeBSD, which Microsoft has a much more close relationship with, historically running large pieces of Hotmail and MSN on that platform. What would happen if Microsoft were to come clean about Vista, what a stinker it is and decided to base the next version of Windows on a core of FreeBSD?

Ok, so before you send email flaming me to an absolute crisp, just think of the possibilities. Who else has been successful with such a pairing of extremely-open licensed underlying OS and a Pretty GUI front-end? Right, Jobs-san and his happy bunch of coders have been wildly successful with such a setup.

Why not have a branded version of SLED? See the previous discussion about the GPL, whereas the BSD licenses are basically “Give credit and don’t pretend you wrote what you didn’t” and they can use BSD code in any commercial product they want to.

Makes you think, hmm?

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

15 Responses to “Microsoft Linux? HAHAHA, er, wait a second…”

Interesting thought… but I think there are two big “boat anchor” reasons that MS would not be able to make this work.

1. The Windows install-base is orders of magnitude larger than even the Mac install-base. Maintaining backwards compatibility with previous versions would be very tough. Either they’d alienate a large portion of their users while satisfying only some with compatibility, or they’d just throw down the gauntlet and not even try to be compatible – and I don’t think they’d be willing to give up that edge to the competition.

2. Windows install base has a wide range of user abilities… Much wider (I think) than say the Macintosh community does. I just don’t know that their user community could handle such a major change… Just look at how slow Vista adoption has been. The only thing driving Vista adoption is home PC buyers who have no choice but to buy Vista these days.

Nice thought Ross. Also made me think deep. You have a point regarding the possibility of MS bringing to the table a BSD-based distro. Jobs-ol-chap did it. Billy might have been thinking of doing it too. MS has experience somewhat with Unix-based OSes (Xenix comes to mind). And they’re playing around with Linux now. Aside from that, MS has introduced its Permissive License (MS-PL), a BSD-style license.

About KChin’s concern regarding compatibility. MS may be able to engineer a Classic-like feature to support previous Windows versions on top of the new BSD-based OS. On Macs, Classic provides the environment to run Mac OS 9 and OS 9-only apps.

Who knows, maybe with Vista they’ll realize that they might have been following the wrong path and switch lanes.

As much as I would love to be able to go out and buy a BSD-based Microsoft operating system as a boxed set, I’m not going to hold my breath. The Windows community is still reeling from the advent of Vista with its various hardware and software compatibility woes.

Windows NT works quite well (I prefer Linux and UNIX solutions) so long as Microsoft realizes that in the end, the user’s perception of its products are determined by how well the parts-as-a-whole, (kernel, shell, UI) empower the user to accomplish whatever task it is they are attempting, be it word processing, blogging, or watching HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies.

As someone with a deep passion for the IT field, I would applaud Microsoft’s move to BSD, but I would applaud even more if they took NT to its full potential without shackling it to unreasonable hardware demands and software restrictions.

I seem to have hit a chord on this one, all good comments, and I admit the technical challenges are ones that I think would make this too tough to have a real chance of happening. Most of those points were the ones that went through my head right before I thought “Bull”.

Still, they’ve already alienated a huge lot of their base with Cairo, er, Longhorn, um, Vista, and have a history of making marks in the sand for leaving application API’s and such behind, with the compat mode, it might be something that could happen. I mean, very few people would even believe Apple was considering going Intel until they did.

I don’t see anything to stop Microsoft doing this, but it wouldn’t be for the desktop. Maybe embedded or server or some very niche application, and then only to help spread fear and uncertainty. Linux still isn’t that big a threat to Microsoft so it would be better for them to leave things as they are.

One good thing for them would be they could make their own broken version of linux, then ship it with their DigitialRights software, they could then withhold this technology from other linux applications, whilst still claiming that they aren’t locking people into using MS-windows. Same would be true for Word and Excel.

I think windows will just slowly converge as it incorporates more of Unix ideas into it’s system (as it breaks them and makes them practically unusable.

I can see Microsoft doing this but when they do I think they’ll wait until they’ve squeezed every last dime out of the OS market and then throw a Unix-based version of Windows out there to give their fanboys something to keep paying for whilst Microsoft moves on to projects likely to earn more cash.

I’d guess they’ll do a BSD based thin OS made for subscription based Internet-based apps and lots of built-in advertising. They’ll given the OS away for free but you’ll have to watch their ads and pay an on-going fee to do anything with your computer. Fun.

It is possible, but not probably. Lets look at it seriously. The Windows kernel SUCKS. I have not had the kind of speed and memory handling that you get in (U/Li)nux. As for backward compatibility, they have to break it at some point. Vista did a fairly good job of it while still supporting some of the old stuff. Make good with the gamers, tick off everyone else: nice move. There is also what was suggested, being partially backward compatible… It’s at least possible, ever heard of Wine? Crossover Office? Essentially it could go in any direction, but I suppose we will have just have to wait and see… considering the next release is probably 2010+.

I tell you would not be interested in a MS version of Linux/BSD/ETC
But what I would be very interested in is a pack for Linux. Something that gives me applications/bits and pieces to improve my desktop experience. I would like that. I think that would be fun. If sold for a reasonable price of course. I have been waiting and hoping that MS would do something cool like that.

The world would be a better place if this happened as we get all MS games and apps running under Linux.
Wait a minute… we already have such a thing in WINE for that.
My point is the eye-candy that MS will provide IF it turns out that way,
will simply be redundant, for we have better environments than MS.

[…] item that caught the attention of some Linux news aggregators. It concentrates on BSD code as a more likely route for Microsoft. What would happen if Microsoft were to come clean about Vista, what a stinker it is and decided […]

I would say M$ can think: “Why selling Novell’s SUSE? We can have our own distribution of Linux and sell both (Windows and Linux) to customers. We can rip Novell off. They will help us to develop some compatibility features fist and then we don’t need them any more” Microsoft would believe that if they provide their own Linux, customers will think it will work better in their mixed/virtual environments.

“Microsoft would believe that if they provide their own Linux, customers will think it will work better in their mixed/virtual environments.”

Maybe in 5+ years that would be technically viable, but the main barrier to adoption will be the old-schoolers and hard-liners (MS Politburo, as it were) who would never allow the company to produce such a thing as MS Linux on their watch.

Like all hardline regimes, as the old guys/gals get retired, die or get vested and go buy a small island, times can change.